Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So you are saying you would be happier with the points of a Tactical Squad if it didn't say:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
Every model is equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

And instead said:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
The Tactical Sergeant and 7 Tactical Marines are equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with Heavy Bolter, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with a Flamer, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
The Tactical Marine armed with a Heavy Bolter may replace it it with:.....
The Tactical Marine armed with a Flamer may may replace it it with:.....The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

This is basically what GW is saying you should do with most units Wargear options. It is your choice to chase the most optimal options rather than be thematic. It is their fault for doing a poor job making the options closer in utility to make that choice more one of unit usage than mathhammer.

And don't bother answering the rhetorical question. I know the answer is no

Yes, this would be better than what we have now. If the expectation is to have special and heavy weapons selected, then the default loadout should include the cheapest selections of both.

Same with sponsons or Hunter-killer missiles. There is no downside in choosing them, so making it optional is a trap choice.

If the default is without any upgrade, then make a unit cost X and unlocking upgrades cost Y. It's really not that hard of a concept to try to be super smug about it.

I mean, in the second example GW isn't forcing you to pay for weapons you might not be taking - for my part I still wouldn't like it because I believe wargear upgrades should generally (if not always) be a choice and there should be some benefit to not taking all the upgrades you can, but that second example is still a step in the right direction.

I will declare myself surprised. If the Wargear Options are free, I see no need to force them on a model in interest of clarifying intent and avoiding the trap choice of not using them. However, I will agree that would do that.

I do see there could be reasons for not charging to unlock upgrades.

One is it prevents taking the cheapest version of a unit because it is deemed to be more efficient. Almost no-one competitive used upgrades on most units. They were deemed inefficient because the unit could to it's job, like being warm bodies to catch bullets and score objectives, with the upgrades that added minimal upside on the unit. This goes all the way back to the Loyal 32 of 8th Edition that had 0 upgrades and existed mostly for the CP along with the space they took up on the board.

The second is it makes determining the points of a unit easier if there are less variables to calculate. It is much easier to determine if you know an Intercessor Squad will always be either 5 Intercessors with an Astartes Grenade Launcher or 10 Intercessors with 2 Astartes Grenade Launchers. Even with the various choices the Sergeant can make for his wargear (a problem with most units), it is easier than worrying about how much those Astartes Grenade Launcher is worth compared to not having it. For all the talk of using the last few points for extra upgrades, most people either always included them or always didn't based on cost versus utility.

Does this mean GW did a great job? No, but I can at least see what they were aiming for despite the execution. I even like the design concept while disliking the execution.

 alextroy wrote:
Almost no-one competitive used upgrades on most units. They were deemed inefficient because the unit could to it's job, like being warm bodies to catch bullets and score objectives, with the upgrades that added minimal upside on the unit.

Nonsense. Build me a competitive tau list for 9th that did not purchase upgrades for the majority of the units in the army.

I'm sure that other people can chip in with requests for their own particular armies to test your assertion that upgrades were not taken in numbers.

Meanwhile, in bizarro world where nobody took Resurrection Orbs, Whip Coils, Shadowlooms...

 alextroy wrote:
So you are saying you would be happier with the points of a Tactical Squad if it didn't say:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
Every model is equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

And instead said:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
The Tactical Sergeant and 7 Tactical Marines are equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with Heavy Bolter, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with a Flamer, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
The Tactical Marine armed with a Heavy Bolter may replace it it with:.....
The Tactical Marine armed with a Flamer may may replace it it with:.....The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

This is basically what GW is saying you should do with most units Wargear options. It is your choice to chase the most optimal options rather than be thematic. It is their fault for doing a poor job making the options closer in utility to make that choice more one of unit usage than mathhammer.

And don't bother answering the rhetorical question. I know the answer is no

To continue with the current point structure they must get to here (sadly).

 alextroy wrote:
One is it prevents taking the cheapest version of a unit because it is deemed to be more efficient. Almost no-one competitive used upgrades on most units. They were deemed inefficient because the unit could to it's job, like being warm bodies to catch bullets and score objectives, with the upgrades that added minimal upside on the unit. This goes all the way back to the Loyal 32 of 8th Edition that had 0 upgrades and existed mostly for the CP along with the space they took up on the board.

I'm very confused as to what you mean here.

Are you including special/heavy weapons as upgrades here? If so, I have to call bullgak on this because people absolutely did take special weapons. Indeed, I'd argue it was far rarer to see units with no special/heavy weapons than ones that maxed out on them.

About the only exception I can think that were consistently ignored would be stuff like power swords/fists on sergeants in ranged units. Though, even then, I'd argue that this is a product of the core rules. e.g. whether or not it was the best possible build, I saw a lot more people taking power fists on sergeants back in 5th edition, because the rules made doing so much more appealing despite the cost. Likewise, you saw more weapons on Eldar/DE sergeants in shooty units back when they could expect to swing before most units that charged them.

I don't need to look up any tactics forum to know that Guard players didn't field their infantry without all sorts of extra guns.

I would rather see a list that actually didn't use upgrades and analyse the outlier.

I think this is a wrong statement of the past edition.

If it’s the choice between nothing and something, ditch the nothing and just always give them something. You have some dumb stuff like the Necron Bikes who have a 5+ save, and then can take a wargear option that gives them a 4+ with no alternatives or downsides, so of course you always take it. This just means the save stat on the front is wrong. Just give them that wargear by default always.

 alextroy wrote:
So you are saying you would be happier with the points of a Tactical Squad if it didn't say:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
Every model is equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
1 Tactical Marine's Boltgun can be replaced with:.....
The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

And instead said:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Tactical Sergeant
■ 9 Tactical Marines
The Tactical Sergeant and 7 Tactical Marines are equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with Heavy Bolter, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon. 1 Tactical Marine is armed with a Flamer, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
The Tactical Marine armed with a Heavy Bolter may replace it it with:.....
The Tactical Marine armed with a Flamer may may replace it it with:.....The Tactical Sergeant’s bolt pistol and boltgun can be replaced with 1 twin lightning claws, or two different weapons from the following list:**...

This is basically what GW is saying you should do with most units Wargear options. It is your choice to chase the most optimal options rather than be thematic. It is their fault for doing a poor job making the options closer in utility to make that choice more one of unit usage than mathhammer.

And don't bother answering the rhetorical question. I know the answer is no

Why would the answer be no? Genuinely confused here. Of course the answer is yes, since that's exactly what I was proposing?

To clarify: I'm proposing the above solely in response to your statement that gw is "essentially telling us to take x upgrades" without actually enforcing it. My proposal would be a better way of achieving that since you'd at least avoid trap choices of the "hah, you failed to divine gw's intended minimum loadout for the squad from the datasheet!" kind. I'm definitely in Team Points otherwise.

The first option is superior. With points for each weapon you take above a bolter.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The first option is superior. With points for each weapon you take above a bolter.

We agree on that

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The first option is superior. With points for each weapon you take above a bolter.

Which would mean 90% of the upgrades in the game can be removed from the sprues as only a very small minority of players will pick them.

Honestly not against the idea. It would mean less plastic refuse in general so the idea is very green. I am not even trying to be clever or sarcastic. I actually think this is a good idea. We are currently drowning in plastic garbage and I am all for reducing it.

really?
did not encountered that from 3rd to 9th, any source for that people always used the basic loadout and never paid points for the upgrades?

and if this is true, why even have different weapons, just a generic "heavy weapon" for everyone would be enough

 Eldarsif wrote:
Which would mean 90% of the upgrades in the game can be removed from the sprues as only a very small minority of players will pick them.

*brandishes Hitchens's razor*

'Nobody took any upgrades for nine editions' is the new 'I always took an Ether Lance and Daemonic Visage!'

I took Daemonic Visage... sometimes...

It was great when you had a few points spare, something 10th Ed can't replicate at all.

Deleted

I have played for nine editions with mostly Imperial Guard and usually used some upgrades on units that had options for them. Special Weapons were always desirable. Occasionally a heavy weapon for infantry, plasma cannons, lascannons, and multi-meltas for vehicles, autocannons sometimes for sentinels. The units that I almost always took bare bones were characters (valued for their auras and orders, not killing power) and artillery. Sometimes I took bare bones Leman Russes and Scout Sentinels.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Which would mean 90% of the upgrades in the game can be removed from the sprues as only a very small minority of players will pick them.

This is such a weird and untrue assessment.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The first option is superior. With points for each weapon you take above a bolter.

Which would mean 90% of the upgrades in the game can be removed from the sprues as only a very small minority of players will pick them.

Doesn't matter. If it's better than the base model, it needs to cost more.

 kodos wrote:
really?
did not encountered that from 3rd to 9th, any source for that people always used the basic loadout and never paid points for the upgrades?

Back in 3rd and 4th I’d run my tactical squads bare bones, maybe with a flamethrower at best, most of the time. Also, for multiple editions I’ve ignored all upgrades on any irl boyz I took with the sole exception of the nob (who got upgraded to a nob, given a klaw, bosspole, ect).

Idk why I’m bringing this up. Even if we pretend everyone had always run bare troop choices, literally no army ever has refused upgrades on their more elite selections.

I remember those times as I had my naked Blood Claws without anything as well as my 20 points full upgraded Grey Hunters

saying no one ever took the 1 point per model grenade so those are useless bits on the frame if you need to pay points for them is a bold claim

 Eldarsif wrote:

Which would mean 90% of the upgrades in the game can be removed from the sprues as only a very small minority of players will pick them.

This, as they say, is a bad take.

Could be a local meta thing? Imagine that, playing all those editions and everyone only ever taking a handful of upgrades.

Not sure if every tournament included the changes etc - but supposedly at the weekend Eldar were still at a 70% win rate after mirrors.

Really though, I think the tournament data remains a bit small to really know what's going on. I.E. Sisters of Battle were up to a respectable 47% win rate compared with the mid 30s last week. But we are talking about 7 players - so really it feels like the result will have been a function of who ran into who. (In the same way the 7 DG players crashed to just a 27% win rate, which might be a record low for a real faction).

A point to make regarding the win rate this past weekend. I know of two events that did not utilize the current changes to Aeldari. Captial City Clash; lists and rules were locked in before the GW points change and Fate Dice. The Salt Lake location GT streamed over the weekend indicated they had made house rules regarding Fate Dice (1 dice per unit per phase). I am unsure what the other events had in place.

I think next weekend's results will be more in line (assuming no GW changes this week) as it should ensure all results will be using the current points/rules changes.

Not saying Aeldari won't still be high but at least removes the variable rules that were utilized last weekend.

Of note, I did get to play in a local one day event using the updated rules for Aeldari. I went 2-1 (lost to Deathwatch). Locally, the more serious tourney players attended Capital City Clash GT which had our GSC, Custodes and Necron players absent. As a result, the tourney boiled down to Knight vs Knight taking the top spots.

Regarding Fate Dice, I ended up with 4-6 Fate Dice remaining after each game. I'd like to get in more games but it did leave me wondering if I even needed Guardian Defenders in my list and really see no reason to add Eldrad to future lists.

Sarigar wrote:
Regarding Fate Dice, I ended up with 4-6 Fate Dice remaining after each game. I'd like to get in more games but it did leave me wondering if I even needed Guardian Defenders in my list and really see no reason to add Eldrad to future lists.

A rules change that make you wonder if you should abuse your faction rule to the fullest can’t be a bad change.

 alextroy wrote:

Sarigar wrote:
Regarding Fate Dice, I ended up with 4-6 Fate Dice remaining after each game. I'd like to get in more games but it did leave me wondering if I even needed Guardian Defenders in my list and really see no reason to add Eldrad to future lists.

A rules change that make you wonder if you should abuse your faction rule to the fullest can’t be a bad change.

Haha, I get your snark

The rule change impacts how I will build the army. Not sure how good it is. I was losing games to very efficient Necron and DA builds prior to the rule changes. And those folks piloting those armies were getting blown out by GSC.

The rules changed. I got to field my army against Imperial Knights (win), Deathwatch (loss), and Tau (win). I'll play more games and figure out what works for me. Currently, I am scoring very high on Secondaries but can struggle on Primaries.